RecruitMonty said:
I still think more sound work needs to be done. One of the most attractive features of a game like this are the weapon sounds, the more realistic and varied the better.

You may be right, however, both Andy and I play the game with the sound off so what does that tell you about sound as a priority for us? Even when I do play with the sound on it's turned on low as "background ambiance". Would you spend hundreds of hours working on something you'll never use? There are ample sound slots still open in the sounds.ini and anyone so inclined could easily create new sounds, add them to the game and the OOB's but to date no one has bothered which I think says a lot about the general enthusiasm for the idea.

We've both being doing this for a long time. It'll be ten years for me come January 2008. We are currently upgrading SPMBT and then SPWW2 but we are at the stage that we are only devoting valuable time to things we feel strongly about and right now sounds and the upgrading of all the OOB's to accommodate those sounds are not on the list

RecruitMonty said:
Bridges should be easier to destroy. The wooden bridge especially. Tanks with 75mm plus guns firing on some rickety wooden structure with HE rounds should be able to make nice holes in the wooden houses too. I mean they aren't bunkers are they.

For my own conscience I don't take Wooden bridges as Wooden, but as Secondary or pontoon bridges (and even at that, rare due to their fragility) - mind you, each of these bridges will take Leopard - one hell of wooden structure that isn't going to be blown easily with random hits. Plus there's that argument that few bridges are 50 meters wide so that any shell that hits the hex can hit them and damage the enough to bring them down. So I'd say bridges are too fragile as they stand(then again, it's a long-time used value so I don't think it needs change, if I need a survivable bridge I can always build a land bridge).

Quote:

Also the way damage to the map from mortars etc (lighter artillery) is frankly laughable. In reality anything of 60mm would leave a mark on the ground. I always find this so frustrating, there you are plastering an area with fire and the only evidence that you have done so is a bit of smoke. I think the cut off point should be lowered so that weapons with smaller warhead sizes can do more damage to the map. It's not just a question of aesthetics, its more realistic. In my opinion.

Would make sense if the damae was just cosmetical, but it does influence terrain properties and 60mm or 81mm mortar isn't going to destroy road or dig a crater wide enough for you to hide into So I'd say the WH effects are good as they are now...

__________________
This post, as well as being an ambassador of death for the enemies of humanity, has a main message of peace and friendship.

There already is a choice in the OP filter screen for shooting at aircraft or not so what is it you're asking for here?

Look the best translation made Recruit Monty (post #561316).

===>>> The Op-fire filter could do with some tweaking too. For example lighter reconnaissance aircraft, when deployed, have the habit of soaking up AA fire so that a smart player who knows the exploits will purchase a few recon planes (UAVs etc) then send them in watch them blow up and then later send in his Jets and make merry hell. The ground AA wastes its ammo on the recon planes. One suggestion would be to make sure recon aircraft (which I believe are size zero in-game) canít be targeted. If they, the recon planes, have to be targeted then it would be better if AA MGs and so on were tasked with such work and not the heavier stuff. Quite frankly I think you should have the option to say yes or no to Op-fire be it on aircraft or on ground units. It would make things a little more manageable. Most of the problems encountered in-game are normally down to the willy-nilly application of Op-fire anyway. You should be given the choice, at least with AA defence.

Quote:

Epoletov_SPR said:
To increase the cost of transport helicopters with weapons (those only equipped with MGs). Now they seem quite unstoppable, are affordable and they are no less effective than the attack helicopters.

Uhhh, are you playing the same game as I am? These transports drop as flies in modern games; I find them barely cost effective as they are. If you're referring to environments with very little AA these sort of craft should be powerful; it's what they're designed for. The problem there isn't the cost of the craft but the lack of the appropriate gear on the other side.

You probably did not meet their massed and skilful use in fight.

They are very cheap for the abilities.
Intel, destruction no-armored and light-armored targets.
And also for destruction of enemy helicopters (from distance 1 hex for example).
And at last in the end of a strike to land a courageous landing!

And your air defence will not prevent, for this purpose is unvaluable no-armed helicopters and effective (absorb air defence) UAV. [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/Cold.gif[/img]

This I absolutely disagree with. This 2-range Z-fire is one of the very best features in the game. And realistic

All right infantry pinned.

But when armored vechicles badly are at war after their bombardment from machine guns, it is strange.

It is necessary to relieve armored vechicles from pinned fire MG-unit, etc.

Even Crew with Pistol can buttoned Tank.

Quote:

Epoletov_SPR said:
The Op-fire filter could do with some tweaking too. For example lighter reconnaissance aircraft, when deployed, have the habit of soaking up AA fire so that a smart player who knows the exploits will purchase a few recon planes (UAVs etc) then send them in watch them blow up and then later send in his Jets and make merry hell. The ground AA wastes its ammo on the recon planes. One suggestion would be to make sure recon aircraft (which I believe are size zero in-game) canít be targeted. If they, the recon planes, have to be targeted then it would be better if AA MGs and so on were tasked with such work and not the heavier stuff. Quite frankly I think you should have the option to say yes or no to Op-fire be it on aircraft or on ground units. It would make things a little more manageable. Most of the problems encountered in-game are normally down to the willy-nilly application of Op-fire anyway. You should be given the choice, at least with AA defence.

That's not players exploiting the game, that's players using real world tactics to feel out the air defense present.
There's not going to be a choice on OP fire in this game. Basically for the same reason I mentioned in my first answer in this post. It's a crew choice, not a player choice

Arrives UAV and stupid air defence shoots on it though it is clear that not effectively.

What such real world tactic, it is lack WinSPMBT 3.5.

What bad to order to air defence to shoot on important, valuable aircraft?
Ambush in air defence one of the basic military cunnings of modern war.
Wait valuable target.
For example so was in Vietnam (B-52 down, passing fighters).

Quote:

Narwan said:

There is a huge cost increase for TI units. And it is HUGE. And TI is very effective in real life so why shouldn't it be in the game? The vision range in the game is even less than it is in reality.
As to not wanting to play beyond the 80's by some players, that's not because of the game but because modern day combat in real life is so fast and accurate as to be not much fun.
So with regards to TI I'd say: don't blame the messenger (the game) for the message that TI is the superior system on the field in the real world.
But then again, I think this discussion was done months ago.

There are many factors reducing efficiency TI in a reality.
Weather for example (a rain, a heat, etc.) - reduces ability to find out target.

Not so.
The infantry should be able to dig entrenchments during fight (so in WinSPWaW), 2-3 Turns, depending on experience the soldier).

No, that's a big error in SPWaW we really don't want to repeat in these games. It takes a lot of time for soldiers to dig an entrenchment or foxholes that give significant protection and allow them to fight effectively. It takes far longer than those 5 to 10 minutes you mention (try an hour or more at least). Which takes it out of the scope of the game length for these tactical games. Bad idea.

Quote:

Epoletov_SPR said:
You probably did not meet their massed and skilful use in fight.

They are very cheap for the abilities.
Intel, destruction no-armored and light-armored targets.
And also for destruction of enemy helicopters (from distance 1 hex for example).
And at last in the end of a strike to land a courageous landing!

And your air defence will not prevent, for this purpose is unvaluable no-armed helicopters and effective (absorb air defence) UAV. [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/Cold.gif[/img]

It is necessary to increase cost Armed transport helicopters.

I don't think it's necessary. IMO you're making the mistake of taking a single combat system in a single specific set of circumstances and then complaining the system's not balanced. In another set of circumstances that same system seems pityfully weak. So if I do have a host of aa guns in my game wiping these craft from the skies that doesn't mean they are too expensive and need a cut in price (although I stick to my opinion they are barely cost-effective).

Like everything it comes down to the balance of forces. If you buy lot's of infantry without AT weapons and BTR60's you can hardly complain armor is too expensive because it's so hard to destroy the enemy tanks.
Most transports can be damaged destroyed even by small arms and damaged units will fly off the map.
And as to their effectiveness, they are in RL too (under the right set of circumstances). The Americans showed in Vietnam just how strong a helicopter born infantry force can be in a light AA environment.

Quote:

Epoletov_SPR said:
All right infantry pinned.

But when armored vechicles badly are at war after their bombardment from machine guns, it is strange.

It is necessary to relieve armored vechicles from pinned fire MG-unit, etc.

Even Crew with Pistol can buttoned Tank.

I'm not dure if you understand the disticntion between ready and buttoned for AFV's. Ready means the crew has hatches open and is sticking their heads out for the best round view. When buttoned they close down those hatches and have to use whatever visibility their AFV allows. No matter what their performance will drop as they will have a reduced view of their surroundings.
When faced with small arms fire, even from pistols, crew will have a tendency to get under armor and close the hatches. But don't forget that most times such a pistol shot will not cause a AFV to button down so they'll be able to use all MG's to fire back.
When faced with a barrage of mmg area fire you bet that AFV cress will pull down their heads (and hence be 'buttoned'). Heavy mg fire (and even small arms fire) is a real life tactic to reduce the effectiveness of AFV. It can even drive them off in RL (that happens when a AFV crew is buttoned and no longer feels secure because they can't see everything around them anymore; in fear of an ambush they may pull out). So why shouldn't the game have this too?

Quote:

Epoletov_SPR said:
Arrives UAV and stupid air defence shoots on it though it is clear that not effectively.

What such real world tactic, it is lack WinSPMBT 3.5.

What bad to order to air defence to shoot on important, valuable aircraft?
Ambush in air defence one of the basic military cunnings of modern war.
Wait valuable target.
For example so was in Vietnam (B-52 down, passing fighters).

There's a difference between ambushing strategic bombers and ignoring tactical craft. What you're saying is "let's ignore these little craft who are maping out all our forces present so the enemy knows exactly where to aim their cluster ammo". UAV 's are a PRIME target for antiaircraft units, as are other scout aircraft like scout helicopters and light planes. Modern combat is all about C3I and the speed with which you can react. UAV's give about the fastest response possible (as they have a direct link to a base and there is no 'pilot' as intermediate who has to communicate his findings) to the enemy so these are very important targets to shoot down.
Ignoring scout craft would lead to far, far larger problems to the game than what you feel is present now.

Quote:

Epoletov_SPR said:
There are many factors reducing efficiency TI in a reality.
Weather for example (a rain, a heat, etc.) - reduces ability to find out target.

In WinSPMBT 3.5 TI gives too big superiority.

Now cost "TI" it is underestimated in comparison with efficiency.

As I said, this debate was done months ago. TI is in fact much more capable in many respects than it is depicted in the game now. So it averages out.

And I'll repeat from before, TI can be blocked in the game, it's not going to see through everything all of the time.

Just to add to the helo section, it's about the same as APC. Primary mission of transport helo/APC (even if armed) is to carry grunts to battle and their armament is for self-defence or support of their dismounts.
Now of course if you want you can get them into harm's way and use then for scouting or as mini-tanks (or mini-gunships) but then one hidden infantry squad with good nerves can at worst shoot them down, at best it can shoo them away after damaging them. Plus, contrary to APC's that tend to be smaller than tanks, transport helos tend to be bigger than gunships, so are easier to hit.
heavily armed transport helos (Blackhawks with Hellfires, Ka-29TB...) tend to be fragile and expensive, just as IFV's are, so there's again that balance - heavier weapons make the vehicle more powerful, but OTOH distract from the primary mission and usually have cargo capacity penalties. And in threat-rich environment (plenty AAA or AT weapons) they both tend to die quickly if used carelessly.

__________________
This post, as well as being an ambassador of death for the enemies of humanity, has a main message of peace and friendship.

RecruitMonty said:
Tanks with 75mm plus guns firing on some rickety wooden structure with HE rounds should be able to make nice holes in the wooden houses too. I mean they aren't bunkers are they.

I know this is only one source, but after reading Harry Yeide's "The Tank Killers" about WWII TDs, it seems clear that its really down the specific HE round used. There are anecdotes of TDs at close range having to fire multiple HE rounds just to make a hole big enough in a gutted stone house wall to use the structure as an improvised vehicle emplacement. It might be realistic to assume the shot is simply passing through without hitting anything hard enough to detonate it.

Also, a wooden house may appear rickety and really be so, but if you're not hitting load bearing structures and not hitting it with a round big enough to not really require good shot placement, it could likely take a surprising amount of damage.

Not entirely sure how true either of these points may be, but its something to chew on.

Quote:

DRG said:
**********Look, we allow 70 ton tanks to cross wooden bridges so there's the "rickety wooden structure" argument out the window. I could easily change the code to elliminate wooden bridges altogether and only place stone/steel ones ( my preference for the "Post WW2" world of MBT )but we left them in AND we ensured that an engineer squad with a satchel charge cannot take wooden or stone/steel bridges with one go as the game used to allow. It's a game design decision we made some time ago.

Is there a way to change this? Not allow vehicles with sizes or weight over a certain number on terrain types? I understand you could do it by class, but I also understand that would be a prohibitive amount of work to make sure all the OOBs have the heavy tanks in the right class.

I only say this because the bridges not meant for 70 ton MBTs were a huge issue in places like Bosnia.

thatguy96 said:
I know this is only one source, but after reading Harry Yeide's "The Tank Killers" about WWII TDs, it seems clear that its really down the specific HE round used. There are anecdotes of TDs at close range having to fire multiple HE rounds just to make a hole big enough in a gutted stone house wall to use the structure as an improvised vehicle emplacement. It might be realistic to assume the shot is simply passing through without hitting anything hard enough to detonate it.

Possible IMO, members of Cpat. Mackay's group from Arnhem specifically described how they were assaulted by Tiger II's - the tank was apparently firing Panzergranate only as the shells went through the entire building, leaving large holes in their path but not exploding.

__________________
This post, as well as being an ambassador of death for the enemies of humanity, has a main message of peace and friendship.

Bridges should be easier to destroy. The wooden bridge especially. Tanks with 75mm plus guns firing on some rickety wooden structure with HE rounds should be able to make nice holes in the wooden houses too. I mean they aren't bunkers are they.

Got to agree with everyone on this one. Even wooden bridges aren't supposed to be rickety (it would be fun if they could be, but hey) since they can carry any vehicle.
Regarding structure hexes, bear in mind that each hex is about 50m diameter, so blowing a "hole" through a hex or bringing down the whole block will require something more than a few direct-fire HE shells.

Then it would be better to do what "thatguy96" suggested with tanks and bridges. But the houses, come on. By 1946 I think most of the tank guns available to the allies (Sovs. incl.) could do serious damage even to stone houses. The High-end German stuff certainly could.

As for sounds, I found a load, Plasma seems to have also found a load, and no one ever asked for them. That's the trouble, no one ever asks. I have done in the past and all I got was... nevermind. Perhaps if someone would ask for them then maybe the changes, in that department, might begin taking shape.

Regarding craters etc, a cosmetic adjustment was what I was driving at. Still does not explain why houses remain undamaged by lighter artillery though, well it does (limit of the game code - no ground damage = no house damage) but still surely a way around this can be found. Buildings could benefit from a certain amount of visible damage from receiving lighter artillery damage. IRL if a house gets hit by a 60mm mortar round you need more than just a lick of paint to fix the damage.

RecruitMonty said:
Then it would be better to do what "thatguy96" suggested with tanks and bridges. But the houses, come on. By 1946 I think most of the tank guns available to the allies (Sovs. incl.) could do serious damage even to stone houses. The High-end German stuff certainly could.

There were still houses standing in Stalingrad (though without roofs etc.) by 6th Army's capitulation...
And I doubt any tank gun would have such destructive effects as direct-fire sIG-33. With house demolitions, muzzle velocity and penetration is almost immaterial to you, amount of explosives is important. And even sIG-33 would have problems with large concrete/stone/thick-walled brick buildings, definitely it won't bring them down with one or two shots (as it would in SP) - and definitely not with indirect fire as it would have trouble hitting the building - as it is now the building suffers damage when anywhere in the 50-meter-wide circle including the building drops shell of required size. So I'd say buildings are (as with bridges) more fragile than they "should" be... I say leave them or reinforce them.

__________________
This post, as well as being an ambassador of death for the enemies of humanity, has a main message of peace and friendship.